Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Humans Killed Mars?

 
Old 03-03-2019, 11:14 AM
  #41  
virtue4u
CF Senior Member
 
virtue4u's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Posts: 58,995
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post

It should be obvious, even to an idiot such as yourself.
Someone needs a little time out from this forum.
virtue4u is offline  
Old 03-03-2019, 05:20 PM
  #42  
Chambered
CF Senior Member
 
Chambered's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2005
Location: Milford Michigan
Posts: 4,462
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Default

That's correct - chicken pox. All you gotta do is read Ray Bradbury...
Chambered is online now  
Old 03-03-2019, 07:42 PM
  #43  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
I’m the one sticking to science while you’re the one posting angry.

Let’s stick to science.

Mars once had an atmosphere and global ocean and globally linked subterranean sea system. The climate change occurred without any human activity. Its current atmosphere is 95.32% CO2, none of it by human activity.

Earth’s CO2 is currently about 0.04% (400 ppm) of the atmosphere, but 600 million years ago was 15 times higher at 0.75% (7500 ppm), and in the first atmosphere was 200 times higher at 8% (80,000 ppm), and none of this resulted in runaway global warming. In fact, the temperatures while CO2 was several times what it is today is comparable to now, and after the Cambrian Explosion where CO2 was 15 times higher than today life expanded across the planet like no other time before or since, helped by photosynthesis and CO2’s role in benefiting life. Then you have the Younger Dryas whose CO2 spiked up to 400 ppm with a rate of change several times higher than anything today.

That’s science.

All you have is anger, unless you want to tefute any of that, scientifically, no political scientifically.
I apologize if I misinterpreted your original post as being anti-MMCC.

Even though one poster attempted to use "MMGW" in it's stead.

There are undoubtedly too many MMCC deniers on this forum. People who would rather listen to politics than science.
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-03-2019, 07:50 PM
  #44  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,736
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
I apologize if I misinterpreted your original post as being anti-MMCC.

Even though one poster attempted to use "MMGW" in it's stead.

There are undoubtedly too many MMCC deniers on this forum. People who would rather listen to politics than science.
Actually, I’m persuaded by the science, and correlation is not causation. Human activity is a tiny fraction of the increase of CO2 from 285 ppm to 400 ppm today. People tend to ignore that we’re in an interglacial (Holocene), having exited the last ice age, then recently the Little Ice Age around 1850. The greatest rate of changed occurred during the Younger Dryas. Like on Mars, such occurred without human activity.
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 10:48 AM
  #45  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
Actually, I’m persuaded by the science, and correlation is not causation. Human activity is a tiny fraction of the increase of CO2 from 285 ppm to 400 ppm today. People tend to ignore that we’re in an interglacial (Holocene), having exited the last ice age, then recently the Little Ice Age around 1850. The greatest rate of changed occurred during the Younger Dryas. Like on Mars, such occurred without human activity.
This is exactly where we disagree.

Comparing Mars( such occurred without human activity) to the Earth is totally capricious and misguiding. Whatever the cause of the Younger Dryas event-it's cause remains open to debate-the climatic changes occurred over a period estimated to be between 700 and 900 years.

If human activity is not responsible for the dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere during the last 200 years-a period that corresponds exactly with the human combustion of fossil fuels- what is?

For an interesting read try: https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Pa...furDioxide.pdf

It explains the possible effects of SO2 levels in the atmosphere. One conclusion is that SO2 levels coincide with the YD warming. The interactions between the climate, SO2 ,methane, water vapor and CO2 are complex-sometimes reinforcing and other times impeding.

"“large” volcanic eruptions are occurring every few months to every year or two for years to decades (Cardinal Rate III in Table 1). No other processes are known that can cause such rapid warming so often. The reason for the warming appears to be reduction of oxidation potential causing an increase in gases such as carbon monoxide and methane. Once warming begins, the erupted water and CO2 would compound the warming. Increasing temperatures would further increase atmospheric concentrations of water and CO2. Such positive feedbacks help us understand how the global temperatures could change so rapidly. In conclusion, prior to man, global climate change appears to be initiated primarily by changes in SO2. Changes in CO2 are a result, not a cause."

Therefore, it appears that comparing CO2 levels during the YD warming and the current trend towards CC is inaccurate and without merit.

In any case, there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, and that the climate is changing due to it's effect. So, what is your argument for not doing our best to reduce CO 2 levels?
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 11:02 AM
  #46  
694speed350
CF Senior Member
 
694speed350's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: vonore Tn
Posts: 16,842
Thanked 30 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
Well, then. Why don't your retrace history to the very beginning, when there was no free oxygen in the atmosphere?

And explain why Mars is called the "Red" planet.

Or, compare Mars (where you MMCC deniers so gleefully shout about the temperature) to Venus where the CO2 concentration is 95% and the temperature would melt lead.

Bunch of idiots.
my you must have looked in the mirror. hired any illegals lately?
694speed350 is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 12:45 PM
  #47  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,736
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
This is exactly where we disagree.

Comparing Mars( such occurred without human activity) to the Earth is totally capricious and misguiding. Whatever the cause of the Younger Dryas event-it's cause remains open to debate-the climatic changes occurred over a period estimated to be between 700 and 900 years.

If human activity is not responsible for the dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere during the last 200 years-a period that corresponds exactly with the human combustion of fossil fuels- what is?

For an interesting read try: https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Pa...furDioxide.pdf

It explains the possible effects of SO2 levels in the atmosphere. One conclusion is that SO2 levels coincide with the YD warming. The interactions between the climate, SO2 ,methane, water vapor and CO2 are complex-sometimes reinforcing and other times impeding.

"“large” volcanic eruptions are occurring every few months to every year or two for years to decades (Cardinal Rate III in Table 1). No other processes are known that can cause such rapid warming so often. The reason for the warming appears to be reduction of oxidation potential causing an increase in gases such as carbon monoxide and methane. Once warming begins, the erupted water and CO2 would compound the warming. Increasing temperatures would further increase atmospheric concentrations of water and CO2. Such positive feedbacks help us understand how the global temperatures could change so rapidly. In conclusion, prior to man, global climate change appears to be initiated primarily by changes in SO2. Changes in CO2 are a result, not a cause."

Therefore, it appears that comparing CO2 levels during the YD warming and the current trend towards CC is inaccurate and without merit.

In any case, there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, and that the climate is changing due to it's effect. So, what is your argument for not doing our best to reduce CO 2 levels?
What isn’t up for debate regarding the greatest rate of change during the Younger Dryas is it had nothing to do with human activity, just as what happened on Mars had nothing to do with humans.

Why temperatures rose since the mid-1800s is because the Little Ice Age (1350-1859) ended and we warmed back up as such things occur without human activity.

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) also known as the Medieval Climate Optimum, or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may have been related to other warming events in other regions during that time, including China
[1] and other areas,[2]
[3] lasting from c. 950 to c. 1250.[
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Whatever happened on Mars occured without human activity. If you could stop 100% of human contributed CO2 on Earth, it would do nothing significant to affect these warming and cooling periods. Afterall, we’re currently in an interglacial (Holocene) period and will return to an ice age, thaw out, but perhaps future generations won’t make the same correlation-is-causation error you made.

So let me ask you; If we ended 100% of human caused CO2, what will CO2 be for the next 100, 1,000 years, and 1,000,000 years? If you can answer that, you’ll persuade me.

Last edited by ifitgoesfast; 03-04-2019 at 12:54 PM.
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 12:47 PM
  #48  
virtue4u
CF Senior Member
 
virtue4u's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Posts: 58,995
Thanks: 0
Thanked 14 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
What isn’t up for debate regarding the greatest rate of change during the Younger Dryas is it had nothing to do with human activity.

Why temperatures rose since the mid-1800s is because the Little Ice Age (1350-1859) ended and we warmed back up as such things occur without human activity, just as what happened on Mars had nothing to do with humans.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Whatever happened on Mars occured without human activity. If you could stop 100% of human contributed CO2 on Earth, it would do nothing significant to affect these warming and cooling periods. Afterall, we’re currently in an interglacial (Holocene) period and will return to an ice age, thaw out, but perhaps future generations won’t make the same correlation-is-causation error you made.
Well stated.
The properties of a single molecule (CO2) do not explain climate change.
I don't know why people are so brainwashed to think we understand such a complex system as climate based solely on the properties of a single molecule.
virtue4u is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 12:51 PM
  #49  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,736
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by virtue4u View Post
Well stated.
The properties of a single molecule (CO2) do not explain climate change.
I don't know why people are so brainwashed to think we understand such a complex system as climate based solely on the properties of a single molecule.
We should ask jnb if he were to build a greenhouse on Mars, would he then pump in CO2 or water vapor to trap the heat for the plants he needs for survival. Bonus question would be if jnb built a greenhouse on Earth, why is it no one pumps in CO2?
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 04:04 PM
  #50  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
What isn’t up for debate regarding the greatest rate of change during the Younger Dryas is it had nothing to do with human activity, just as what happened on Mars had nothing to do with humans.

Why temperatures rose since the mid-1800s is because the Little Ice Age (1350-1859) ended and we warmed back up as such things occur without human activity.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Whatever happened on Mars occured without human activity. If you could stop 100% of human contributed CO2 on Earth, it would do nothing significant to affect these warming and cooling periods. Afterall, we’re currently in an interglacial (Holocene) period and will return to an ice age, thaw out, but perhaps future generations won’t make the same correlation-is-causation error you made.

So let me ask you; If we ended 100% of human caused CO2, what will CO2 be for the next 100, 1,000 years, and 1,000,000 years? If you can answer that, you’ll persuade me.
I would think that it would be the same as the past 400,000 years. Can you offer any proof that it would-for any scientific reason- be otherwise?



jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 04:13 PM
  #51  
Aerovette
CF Senior Member
 
Aerovette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2001
Location: MAGA !!!
Posts: 28,462
Thanked 182 Times in 119 Posts
Default

Dudes, like maybe we only think we're like looking at Mars when like for real we're like looking through like, a time change or like black hole and like we are seeing like earth in like 12 years.
Aerovette is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 04:41 PM
  #52  
VETTRLZ
CF Senior Member
 
VETTRLZ's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2007
Location: San Diego Ca
Posts: 35,018
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Torqaholic View Post
And the average temperature is -80° F. That's gonna pop some dork noggins
Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids. In fact, it's cold as Hell.















VETTRLZ is online now  
Old 03-04-2019, 06:31 PM
  #53  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,736
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
I would think that it would be the same as the past 400,000 years. Can you offer any proof that it would-for any scientific reason- be otherwise?



You cherry pick.

I don’t.

As you can see, human activity is insignificant.





Last edited by ifitgoesfast; 03-04-2019 at 06:34 PM.
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 06:36 PM
  #54  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,736
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

What happened to Mars has nothing to do with humans.

What happened to Earth (see charts) has nothing to do with humans.
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 06:42 PM
  #55  
Aerovette
CF Senior Member
 
Aerovette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2001
Location: MAGA !!!
Posts: 28,462
Thanked 182 Times in 119 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
What happened to Mars has nothing to do with humans.

What happened to Earth (see charts) has nothing to do with humans.
Aliens?


Just kidding. I agree 100%
Aerovette is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 07:35 PM
  #56  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
You cherry pick.

I don’t.

As you can see, human activity is insignificant.




That is exactly the reason for my "angry" post.

Comparing the atmosphere of 500 million years ago to the atmosphere over the past several hundred thousand years is like comparing Mars and the Earth. It's silly. Why don't you compare the atmosphere a week after the dinosaur killing meteor hit the Yucatán Peninsula to the temperature in Antarctica yesterday? Or apples to oranges? The data shows without a doubt that the long term concentration of CO2 has remained in a repeatable cycle for a very long time. That is, until the wide-spread burning fossil fuels began.

Deny all you want. Science proves you wrong. When supposedly intelligent people deny science-for what ever reason-I question their agenda.
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-04-2019, 07:53 PM
  #57  
Axelrod
CF Senior Member
 
Axelrod's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: North East
Posts: 7,663
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
That is exactly the reason for my "angry" post.

Comparing the atmosphere of 500 million years ago to the atmosphere over the past several hundred thousand years is like comparing Mars and the Earth. It's silly. Why don't you compare the atmosphere a week after the dinosaur killing meteor hit the Yucatán Peninsula to the temperature in Antarctica yesterday? Or apples to oranges? The data shows without a doubt that the long term concentration of CO2 has remained in a repeatable cycle for a very long time. That is, until the wide-spread burning fossil fuels began.

Deny all you want. Science proves you wrong. When supposedly intelligent people deny science-for what ever reason-I question their agenda.
Speaking of Mars...
Axelrod is offline  
Old 03-05-2019, 07:16 AM
  #58  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,736
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
That is exactly the reason for my "angry" post.

Comparing the atmosphere of 500 million years ago to the atmosphere over the past several hundred thousand years is like comparing Mars and the Earth. It's silly. Why don't you compare the atmosphere a week after the dinosaur killing meteor hit the Yucatán Peninsula to the temperature in Antarctica yesterday? Or apples to oranges? The data shows without a doubt that the long term concentration of CO2 has remained in a repeatable cycle for a very long time. That is, until the wide-spread burning fossil fuels began.

Deny all you want. Science proves you wrong. When supposedly intelligent people deny science-for what ever reason-I question their agenda.
So anger is your response to two scientific charts? Who has the agenda?

Isn’t that (an agenda) exactly what you do when you put up a chart limiting it to a short span to argue CO2 has never been higher, then throw a tanturm when I post two more complete charts than yours for the more complete history of CO2 (though CO2 has been even 200 times higher than today?). Are not those two charts on historical temperature and CO2 science?

On Mars, where CO2 is 95.32% of the atmosphere, humans had nothing to do with it. But Mars wasn’t always like that. It had a global ocean and subterranean lake system. So where did all that CO2 come from? Well, the scientific answer is nature and non-human cataclysm.

Mars, Earth CO2 highs had nothing to do with human activity. Like Mars, Earth has a lot of CO2 trapped in water (72% of planet’s surfaces captures mostt of the CO2. Given CO2 used to be 8% (80,000 ppm) compared to about 0.04% (400 ppm) today, where is most of that CO2? The water. If something happened to Earth (water) as occurred on Mars, no doubt we’d see much more CO2 in the atmosphere from natural sources, not human activity.

Why do you oppose that this is science?

Last edited by ifitgoesfast; 03-05-2019 at 07:30 AM.
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-05-2019, 08:56 AM
  #59  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,971
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
So anger is your response to two scientific charts? Who has the agenda?

Isn’t that (an agenda) exactly what you do when you put up a chart limiting it to a short span to argue CO2 has never been higher, then throw a tanturm when I post two more complete charts than yours for the more complete history of CO2 (though CO2 has been even 200 times higher than today?). Are not those two charts on historical temperature and CO2 science?

On Mars, where CO2 is 95.32% of the atmosphere, humans had nothing to do with it. But Mars wasn’t always like that. It had a global ocean and subterranean lake system. So where did all that CO2 come from? Well, the scientific answer is nature and non-human cataclysm.

Mars, Earth CO2 highs had nothing to do with human activity. Like Mars, Earth has a lot of CO2 trapped in water (72% of planet’s surfaces captures mostt of the CO2. Given CO2 used to be 8% (80,000 ppm) compared to about 0.04% (400 ppm) today, where is most of that CO2? The water. If something happened to Earth (water) as occurred on Mars, no doubt we’d see much more CO2 in the atmosphere from natural sources, not human activity.

Why do you oppose that this is science?
Did you read the article that was linked? Obviously not.

Cherry Picking is your expertise. Posting a graph of CO2 levels over a span of 500 million years, starting at a time when photosynthetic organisms were first beginning to replace the primordial CO2 atmosphere, which had it's source in volcanism, with free oxygen. Especially when the graph that you posted indicates a level of CO2 in the 300 ppm range in recent times.

I'll address your last poorly written paragraph by recommending that you read about the Carbon Cycle.

You asked for an estimate of what the future CO2 levels would be without human interference, and I posted a valid graph of the historic levels. You were unable to offer any scientific explanation of why this trend would not have continued without human interference.

I also asked you what you believe to be the source of CO2 that has caused the spike in it's level during the Industrial Age. You offered no explanation.

Your utter disregard for any thoughtful scientific debate is the cause of my original post.

Again, I ask, what is your agenda?

Last edited by jnb5101; 03-05-2019 at 08:58 AM.
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-05-2019, 09:10 AM
  #60  
owebo
CF Senior Member
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 108,719
Thanked 31 Times in 27 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
That is exactly the reason for my "angry" post.

Comparing the atmosphere of 500 million years ago to the atmosphere over the past several hundred thousand years is like comparing Mars and the Earth. It's silly. Why don't you compare the atmosphere a week after the dinosaur killing meteor hit the Yucatán Peninsula to the temperature in Antarctica yesterday? Or apples to oranges? The data shows without a doubt that the long term concentration of CO2 has remained in a repeatable cycle for a very long time. That is, until the wide-spread burning fossil fuels began.

Deny all you want. Science proves you wrong. When supposedly intelligent people deny science-for what ever reason-I question their agenda.
i love,you LWNJ idiots spewing your settled science....at least there is no reason to question your agenda...
owebo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Humans Killed Mars?


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: